(I am not responding to the "25%" part as I did not use a percent myself, but am responding to the second, stricter, statement.)
Elsewhere in this thread, people are discussing a potentially-credible (but maybe you disagree) report on this from Gergely Orosz that does not paint this as "only the 3 senior executives".
> I talked with an engineering manager who was at Twitter for 5+ years, and got laid off on Sunday "for cause". They were too exhausted from working over the weekend to talk longer: they first need to sleep.
You're missing my point. There's no use in trying to debate whether or not any one person is being fired "for cause" or not...frankly I could care less whether the one item of hearsay you point at is credible or not.
What I'm trying to wade through is the vast oceans of nonsense being fielded in the media and in comments that do not add anything to the story and are just trying to prop up one side or another. There's an ocean of difference between one item of hearsay that you point out (hell, maybe that one EM was due to be fired "for cause" who knows? do you? I sure don't!), and 25% of the workforce being fired "for cause", and 4 executives (not 3 as you point out).
There are Twitter employees tweeting out that they have been fired already. Whether it’s going to be 25% or not, it’s certainly not just outgoing executives.
And the WaPo article states: “ The first round of layoffs, led by his lawyer Alex Spiro, will target 25 percent of the workforce”
Getting rid of 25% of the company "for cause" is not going to hold up in court. They'll be treated as layoffs. I think Musk just proved this by trying the same thing at Tesla.
Ah I see now. Right we will have to see whether they’re claimed to be for-cause or not. Though the rush to fire people with a looming vesting deadline is certainly cause for suspicion.
From WP: "Layoffs are expected to begin ahead of Nov. 1, when Twitter employees are slated to receive additional compensation related to stock grants."
I think this might be the confusing part, because he's trying to claw back as much compensation as possible, maybe he's trying to avoid paying severance as well
With cherry picking you can make any point you want. It not only ignores most of the films in that era, it even ignores most of the best picture Oscar nominees, to say nothing of the fact that OP so wildly mischaracterizes 12 Angry Men and Sweet Smell of Success that I wonder if they've seen the films in the first place.
I have to agree with OP, 12 angry men is a fantastic movie on many levels, but it really feels more like good Shakespeare than 12 real dudes discussing execution and their consience
and to me the voynich manuscript, perhaps this AI plant generation could provide an additional clue to the meaning of the fantasy plants in the manuscript!
The key terms to search for are "nonstandard calculus" or "nonstandard analysis". I just found the following set of lectures (but I haven't watched any of them); maybe they are what you want: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILDkYszP2lA&list=PLDXeoTykA-...
The majority of that document you link to is blacked out. Which part of it exactly are you referring to when you say it's clear that the NSA was in the clear on this?
No, by now we know what they do. Every time classified material is released through outside channels, it looks worse for them. At this time we'd have to be chumps to give them the benefit of the doubt.
Great idea for a project! I too was a big fan of Amarok, and have been disappointed by music players since having used it.
One thing I haven't seen mentioned, which Amarok, excelled at but other players haven't, was dealing with large (>100gb) collections hosted over a network. Hopefully you'll include this in your testing. As well Amarok allowed you to store metadata in arbitrary databases (which QT had support for) hosted on a network, thus allowing for metadata to be shared by computers for a given account. Quite common nowadays is to use SQLite locally; however SQLite does not support working over a network :-/
The only parties being cited as fired for cause are the outgoing executives, and WaPo article at the top of this post provides reasons for that.